Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 91 (PNJ)

Girija v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2003-01-21

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2003
Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate petitioner with continuity of service and full back-wages. She has further prayed that the award dated 4/04/2001 (annexure P-5), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ambala, be quashed. 2. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was appointed as a beldar with the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Panchkula, naraingarh, in the year she served the respondents- management till 1995. The services of the petitioner were terminated during the year 1995. The petitioner served a demand notice dated 2/01/1995, upon the respondents-management. The Reconciliation officer, Ambala, started conciliation proceedings. During the conciliation proceedings, the respondents-management gave an assurance to the petitioner to take her back in service. The offer made was acceded to by the petitioner and the demand notice dated 2/01/1995, was withdrawn by her. Vide order dated 10/02/1995 (annexure P- 1)of the Sub-Division Engineer, Provincial sub-Division No.1, CSD-14, Naraingarh, the petitioner was reinstated. 3. It has been further averred that the petitioner kept working as beldar with respondents Nos.2 and 3 up to 30/11/1996, but her services were again terminated. The petitioner again served a demand notice dated 3/04/1997 (annexure P-3), upon the respondents. A reference of the demand notice was made to the Labour Court, Ambala. The presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, vide his order dated 4/04/2001 (annexure P-5), declined the reference. The petitioner has further averred that she completed 240 days in each calendar year, as she was working with respondents Nos.2 and 3 since 1989. Notice of motion was issued. Written statement was filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the award dated 4/04/2001 (annexure P-5), passed by the Labour court, Ambala, and the relevant record. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner was engaged for specific work and for a specific period, which was mentioned in the muster roll. The case of the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). She has further pointed out that the services of the petitioner were not retrenched and that there was no infringement of the provisions of the Act. 5. The case of the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). She has further pointed out that the services of the petitioner were not retrenched and that there was no infringement of the provisions of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that on 21/02/1995, no settlement had taken place between the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3-management. A letter dated 10/02/1995 (annexure P-1), was issued by the Subdivision Engineer, Provincial Sub-Division no.1, CSD-14, Naraingarh to the petitioner intimating her to join work. The Labour and reconciliation Officer, Ambala, passed an order dated 21/02/1995 (annexure p-2), that as the petitioner was taken back in service as per the settlement dated 20/02/1995, the demand notice issued by the petitioner was treated as dismissed in default. 6. The order dated 21/02/1995 (annexure P-2), passed by the Labour and reconciliation Officer, Ambala, shows that a settlement did take place between the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the statement of MW-1 Shri dev Dutt, Kamboj, SDEP-1, Naraingarh as annexure P-6 wherein this witness of the management has stated that the petitioner was working with respondents Nos.2 and 3 since 1989. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner was removed by the respondents in 1994. He has further stated that the petitioner was taken back in service in february, 1995, after the Reconciliation officer resolved the dispute. It was on account of this reconciliation that respondents Nos.2 and 3 gave the consent to take the petitioner back in service. He has not specifically denied whether the petitioner has not completed 240 days. He has stated that he does not know whether the petitioner has completed 240 days or not. He, being the witness of the management, should have been very specific in answering this question whether the petitioner had completed 240 days or not. He has admitted that junior employees to the petitioner have been regularised. He has also, admitted this fact that no compensation was paid to the petitioner because she was not removed from service by respondents Nos.2 and 3. These are clear admissions being made by the witness of the management, which go in favour of the petitioner. 8. He has admitted that junior employees to the petitioner have been regularised. He has also, admitted this fact that no compensation was paid to the petitioner because she was not removed from service by respondents Nos.2 and 3. These are clear admissions being made by the witness of the management, which go in favour of the petitioner. 8. The provisions of Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of8 the Act were not followed by the respondents-management. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated forthwith. The petitioner is entitled to 50 per cent back-wages from the date when her services were terminated. 9. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.